The Bible teaches creation and not evolution.
Sadly though, Christians are far from agreed on what exactly the
Bible does teach on creation. This has largely come
about by the desire of many Christians to find accommodation for
science in the Scriptures. Thus some have sought to present the six
days of God’s labour in Genesis as six distinct periods of time to
allow for science’s so–called geological ages. Others have claimed
that the six days did not involve the original creation, which was
given only in the first verse of the Bible. This allows as many
years as the geologists desire to be placed between the first two
verses of the Bible. However, recent powerful evidence suggests that
the fossils, on which men base the geological ages, were actually
created by Noah’s flood. This has thrown many back on the idea that
God created everything in six literal days of 24 hours each and that
the earth is at most a few thousand years old instead of the many
millions believed by most scientists. Christian advocates of each of
these different interpretations of the creation record all have one
fundamental mistake in common: they use science to interpret
Scripture.

The Bible as the Word of God

Now let this writer say immediately that science
contributes nothing to Scripture, although if
scientists would believe Scripture, Scripture has much to contribute
to science. God doesn’t need the thoughts and ideas of men to prop
up His Book. It stands alone, supreme and majestic, like the One who
wrote it. Man changes and his views change with him. Many of the
teachings of the men of science of yesterday are not the teachings
of today’s scientists, nor will the teachings of today’s scientists
necessarily be those of tomorrow’s men of learning. In contrast, God
says “I Jehovah change not” (Mal. 3: 6). Hence the inspired volume
is as relevant and up–to–date as when it was completed nearly two
millennia ago. The believer doesn’t need the changing views of
science to help him understand Scripture. His faith rests in God’s
Word simply because it is God’s Word. As the old hymn writer said:
“God is His own interpreter, and He will make it plain”. I want
therefore to examine each of the three views of creation mentioned
in the light of what the Bible actually says.

The Sabbath

When God instituted the Sabbath for Israel, He
gave a reason for it: “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy
work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of Jehovah thy God … For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the
sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day;
therefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Ex. 20:
9–11—my emphasis). The reason for man’s labour and rest was God’s
labour and rest. Make those days of God’s labour in Genesis vague
periods of time and the argument for man’s week of labour and rest
has completely gone. Thus Scripture teaches that the six days of the
Bible’s first chapter are to be taken as six literal days.

The Hebrew Language

Linguists in the ancient languages tell us that
unlike the Greek of the NT, the Hebrew of the OT lacks the range and
depth of expression that both NT Greek and English possess. Yet it
was the language chosen by God with which to give us the precise
detail of creation because in this particular area Hebrew is
rich having distinctive words for create,
make, form and fashion. The Hebrew word translated
create
(bara) is employed in exactly the same way as our English
word create. It is used firstly in the sense of originating
something where there was nothing before and then secondly of making
something from material already in existence. The word bara (create)
is only ever attributed to an act of God in the Bible, for God alone
creates. It is the word used in Gen. 1: 1, 21 and 27. Hebrew has a
different word for make which is
asah. This word in
used in Gen: 1: 7, 16, 25, 31. Both bara and
asah are
used in Gen. 2: 2. While bara can mean
make; asah
cannot mean create (in the sense of making something out of
nothing).

The Work of the Six Days

Outside of Genesis, there are just two places
where we read of the six days of Gods labour: “For in six days
Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in
them” (Ex. 20: 11) and “for [in] six days Jehovah made the heavens
and the earth” (Ex. 31: 17). In both cases the word used is made
(asah) and not
create (bara). Thus these two
Scriptures cannot be used to establish the theory that
God created the universe in six days. In Gen 2: 2 we
are told that “God had finished on the seventh day his work which he
had made (asah)” and in Gen. 2: 3 we have the statement that
“he rested from all his work which God had created (bara) in
making (asah) it”. The last clause literally reads “created
to make” as noted by the translator. There is nothing that demands
the creation of the universe in six days but there is
strong inference that the six days involved God working with
material that had already been created.

The First Day

Those that advocate six days for the creation of
everything have to begin day one in Gen. 1: 1. They realise that the
conjunction And in Hebrew beginning verse two (and each
succeeding verse) precludes the idea of verse one being a summary of
what follows. Hence each verse of the first chapter must be taken as
describing sequential events. Now as the creation of the heavenly
bodies is relegated to day four, this raises a problem: What is
meant by the word heavens of verse one? One writer
paraphrases the first verse as ‘God called into existence the
space–time–mass universe’ to satisfy current scientific
understanding of the physical universe as a continuum of time, space
and matter. Thus the Hebrew words are accorded the vaguest possible
meanings: ‘In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space)
and the earth (matter)’. The first part of verse two gets a similar
treatment being paraphrased as ‘the matter so created was at first
unformed and uninhabited.’ However, verse two also speaks of “the
deep” meaning waters—and water is also matter! Perhaps enough has
been said to show the morass into which one can be led by forcing
the Scriptures into the current views of science.

Chapter One Terminology

Making the first verse of the Bible begin the
first day militates against the terminology of the chapter. The six
days of God’s labour each have a beginning and an ending. Each day
ends with the expression “And there was evening, and there was
morning …”. There is no variation of this terminology. It closes
every day. Is there no expression then peculiar to the start of each
day? The sixth day begins with the words “And God said, Let …”.
Follow it back. Day five, four three and two begin in the same way:
“And God said, Let …”. Should the first day be different? No! In
Gen. 1: 3 we accordingly have “And God said, Let …” showing that the
first day began in the third verse and not the first verse. (The
fact that in the third and sixth days, we have the clause “And God
said, Let …” occurring twice does not alter the pattern.) Hence
verse one and two stand in isolation from the rest of the
chapter—they describe the original creation and its subsequent ruin.

The Hosts of Heaven

The “host(s) of heaven” is an expression found
some 19 times in the Bible. God uses this expression in just two
ways: Firstly, to describe the sun, the moon and particularly the
stars, and secondly, to describe the angels. We shall see that this
expression completely refutes the idea that the original creation
was completed in six literal days and is evidence that the six days
of God’s labour refers only to the reforming of the earth and
adjustment of the heavens in relation to the earth so that it might
be suitable for man. Those who believe that the six days involved
the original creation refuse to acknowledge that the first two
verses of the Bible are separate from the six days (the gap theory,
as they call it). The complaint of such adherents is that the gap
theory was used by many to accommodate the theories of evolutionists
in regard to the geological strata and thus to show that science and
the Bible agree. This was sadly true in some cases, although the gap
theory can actually be traced back to Augustine. This, they rightly
say, is a wholly wrong approach. Yet in reading their literature on
the creation, one is forced to say that they fall into the very same
trap and adapt and interpret the language of Genesis to suit their view of creation.

The first time the expression “the host of heaven” occurs is in
Deut. 4: 19: “and lest thou lift up thine eyes to the heavens, and
see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, the whole host of heaven”.
Now what is the magnitude of this expression “the host
of heaven”? The patriarchs were told by God that their seed would be
as “the stars of heaven” (Gen. 22: 17; 26: 4), the “dust of the
earth” (Gen. 13: 16; 28: 14) and the “sand that is on the sea–shore”
(Gen. 22: 17). The latter two expressions are clearly of the same
magnitude to an observer and cannot be counted, but to the observer
in the time of the patriarchs the stars that they could see could be
counted. The evidence of their eyes would dispute what God had said,
but they did not go on what they saw but by faith they believed
God’s Word. The pathway is the same for us. For what it matters,
science has now come round to the view that God was right! The host
of heaven, in referring to the stars, then refers to an uncountable
number. This is confirmed in Jer. 33: 22 “As the host of the heavens
cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured …”. With this
simple fact in mind, let us now examine the work of day four in
first chapter of Genesis.

And the Stars

The six–day creationists tell us that it is not
until day four that the sun, moon and stars were created. For the
moment, let us accept that the stars were created on
the fourth day. How does day four describe the creation of the host
of heaven, the stars, whose magnitude is akin to the sand of the
sea–shore? The matter is simply contained in these words “—and the
stars” (Gen. 1: 16). The reader is thus given the impression that
the writer of Genesis appends the fact merely as an afterthought, as
if he almost forgot to mention it. At best it is parenthetical. Does
this accord with the description elsewhere of the stars as the host
of heaven? If the six days involves the original creation of the
heavens and the earth, why are the stars in day four treated as
hardly worth a mention? Does the vastness of their number justify
this? I think the six–day creationists have a problem! The answer is
that the stars were created before the six days began
where it says “In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth” (Gen. 1: 1)—my emphasis). The six days of God’s
labour focus not on the heavens at all but on the earth, indeed five
of those days have to do with the earth alone and only day four
introduces heavenly bodies and then only in relation to the
earth. The Hebrew word (bara) for
create used
in Gen. 1: 1 is not employed at all in Gen. 1: 14–19. What took
place on day four was not the original creation of the sun, moon,
and stars out of nothing but the orientation and adjustment of those
heavenly bodies in relation to the earth for habitation by man.

The Angels

The expression, “the host of heaven” is also used
in 1 Kings 22: 19, 21 where we read “I saw Jehovah sitting upon his
throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him, on his right
hand and on his left … And there came forth a spirit, and stood
before Jehovah”. A similar reading is found in 2 Chron 18: 18. Hence
“the host of heaven” here refers not to the physical stars but to
spirits”. Now I read in Ps. 104: 4: “Who maketh his angels spirits;
his ministers a flame of fire”. The “host of heaven” then is also
used to describe the multitude of angels. Their number can be
understood from Rev. 5: 11 “And I saw, and I heard [the] voice of
many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the
elders; and their number was ten thousands of ten thousands and
thousands of thousands”. Now angels are creatures and creatures are
created. When were they created? The six–day creationists recognise
that they have a problem here. How do they deal with it?

The Sons of God

Well, they rightly accept that “sons of God” in
the OT are angels and thus realise that Job 38: 4–7 must not be
ignored for it refers to the presence of the sons of God at the
foundation of the earth: “Where wast thou when I founded the earth?
Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who set the measures thereof—if
thou knowest? or who stretched a line upon it? Whereupon were the
foundations thereof sunken? or who laid its corner–stone, When the
morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for
joy?” If creation in its totality be embraced in the six days, then
depending on the meaning of the word foundations, the angels
must have been created before day three at the latest.
Where is this stated in the record of God’s labour of the six days?
It isn’t! If the six days involve the original creation, why don’t
the angels get even a mention?—the stars at least got
a mention! There are thousands upon thousands of angels and yet
compared to one man Adam, whose creation is detailed,
they are ignored entirely! Surely such a fact must jolt any thinking
person! The simple answer is that they are not mentioned because
they were created prior to the six days when it says “God created
the heavens” (Gen. 1: 1). The natural abode of the unfallen angels
is the heavens (see Matt. 24: 36 etc.).The six days deal with the
earth and what is related to it and man (for six is man’s number—see
Rev. 13: 18).

Satan

Scriptures such as Is. 14: 12–15 and Ez. 28:
11–19 clearly describe Satan before he fell. He was created perfect
and given the greatest dignity of any of God’s creatures. His fall,
and that of the angels who fell with him, is not recorded in Genesis
but clearly took place before chapter three. If the six days
describe the original creation in its entirety, then when did Satan
fall? Not in the period of the six days for all at that time was
pronounced “very good” (Gen. 1: 31).

Adam’s Fall

Now Adam’s fall did not take years but days at
the most. The reason I say that is that while he called his helpmeet
“Woman” (Gen. 2: 23) and had given names to all the creatures that
God had made, he only gave the woman the name of “Eve” (Gen. 3: 20)
after they had sinned, showing the brevity of the time. Hence if
Adam’s fall took days, Satan’s fall must have been even quicker.
Possible but improbable in the light of Is. 14: 12–15 and Ez. 28:
11–19! Why then is there no record of it in the Genesis account? Let
us go a little further. As the sons of God in Gen. 6: 1–4 are angels
who left their first estate (heaven), and as this incident is put on
record in Genesis, then why isn’t the original fall of Satan and his
angels recorded and indeed why is the general creation of angels
omitted? The reason is the one that we have had already. What is
recorded in the six days of God’s labour and subsequently in Genesis
is only that which is connected with man. Hence there is no
distinct mention of the original creation of Satan and the angels,
nor is there any mention of Satan’s fall (prior to the conditions of
Gen. 1: 2). Satan’s appearance in the garden of Eden is detailed
because clearly it is in relation to man. The incident of Genesis 6
is also detailed because it affected man—indeed it was the very
reason for the bringing in of the judgment of the flood.

The Spirit of God

One final thought to establish the fact that
angels were part of the original creation given in Gen. 1: 1. Verse
two speaks of the “Spirit of God”, not exactly “God” as in verse
one. Why? It is said that this is the Holy Spirit. I do not
disagree, but why is He not described thus? A little later in
Genesis Jehovah says “My Spirit shall not always plead with Man”
(Gen. 6: 3). “Spirit of God” and “My Spirit”, when God is speaking,
are virtually synonymous terms. Spirit of God is a
relative, and not an absolute term. When God says “My
Spirit” or the Scriptures speak of the Spirit of God, it assumes a
background of other spirits (see as an example 1 John 4: 1, 2).
If this is not the case, then language has no meaning.
Let us now look at Gen. 1: 2 in this light. Whatever else may be
gleaned from the term “Spirit of God”, it is undisputedly set
against the background of other “spirits”. Hence the events of verse
two took place when other spirits (that is, angels) existed, having already been created, although the action was that of
the Spirit of God. Angels are thus included in the creation of the
“heavens” of verse 1. Hence the six days of God’s labour cannot
embrace the original creation, but only the making of the earth, and
the adjustment of the heavens, making them suitable for the
habitation of man.

The Condition of the Earth

Gen. 1: 2 states that the earth “was waste (tohuw)
and empty (bohuw)” and Is. 45: 18 states “not as waste (tohuw)
did he create (bara) it”. Six–day creationists quote the rest
of the verse in Is. 45: 18 (“he formed (yawtsar) it to be
inhabited”) and argue that the better meaning of tohuw is emptiness and that the sense is that God did not intend the
earth to remain in that empty state but to populate it with life.
This just will not do. Whatever you make the Hebrew word to mean,
Is. 45: 18 says it was not created as such and Gen 1:
2 says it was such. Thus Gen. 1: 2 cannot describe the
earth’s original state.

Now while tohuw occurs many times and can take different
meanings depending on the context, there are just two other
occasions where the words tohuw and
bohuw occur
together. The first is Jer. 4: 23: “I beheld the earth, and lo, it
was waste (tohuw) and empty (bohuw); and the heavens,
and they had no light”. If my reader will go on and read vs 24–28 he
will see that the state of the earth is paralleled with the state of
the land of Israel, indeed the two are interwoven. Was this the
original state of the land? No! Then “waste and empty” could not
have been the original state of the earth. How did the land get into
that state? “I beheld, and lo, the fruitful land was a wilderness,
and all the cities thereof were broken down, before Jehovah, before
his fierce anger” (v26). Hence the parallel state of Gen. 1: 2
probably came about through divine judgment.

The prophecy of Is. 34 concerns the land of Edom and God’s judgment
upon it. We have “And he shall stretch out upon it the line of waste
(tohuw), and the plummets of emptiness (bohuw)” (v11).
You cannot argue that this was the original state of Edom—it was a
state that came about through the God’s judgment. Hence the state of
the earth in Gen. 1: 2 likewise came about on account of divine
judgment some time after God had created everything perfect in Gen.
1: 1. What was the cause of that judgement I do not enter into, what
I do know is that what the six–day creationists regard as the
gap–theory is Bible fact. The six days of God’s labour were limited
to the forming of the earth and adjustment of the heavens for man to
dwell on the earth.

Conclusion

Creationists (so–called) have laboured hard and
long to demonstrate that what they believe fits the evidence of
science. In so doing they have exposed the shaky foundations upon
which the theory of evolution rests. It is a great pity, however,
that their theology is sometimes more shaky than their science. The
gap–theory may now only be a minority view––but it is the only view
that fits the evidence of the Bible.